The Impossibility of God?

Originally posted by Chilbudios VERY wrong, it is an accepted fact that polytheistic religions are tolerant, exactly because they're polytheistic, they always have space for one more god! There's one subtle difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, and of course between enforcing one or another. Being polytheist doesn't necessarily adds tolerance. Read the links I added, read the laws and forbiddings in the Ancient World, starting with the mythical dimension of Pentheus attempting to stop Dionysos' cult (probably having a factual basis from the unrecorded history of the Balkans/Greece) and reaching the Hellenistic Kingdoms and the Roman world.

Ever hear of the mass murders of Christians by the polytheistic Japanese at times?

Originally posted by Cezar Hi Fogger, welcome to AE! You are an atheist and you are looking for a consistent God? So, you limit existence to an instance where no consistent God exists. Therefore if no consistent God exists => no God exists?    How about a non consitent God that exists? If so, your "why..." questions would have an answer ("because" should suffice for all).   Non consistency is not a proof all by itself.

This sometimes occurs in atheistic thought, that just becase the Abrahamic god is inconsistent means there is no creator. Just because the religions are wrong about their gods in no way means that there cannot be a creator.



Edited by Emperor Barbarossa - 03-Oct-2006 at 16:08

What is gained from trying to disprove someones faith? Is it not presumptuous to suggest someone is wrong for following their heart? Having faith is no more wrong than not having it.

Its also futile. As no-one is going to be swayed from their religion by someone else. If people change their religion they do so for their own reasons.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim [quote] Its also futile. As no-one is going to be swayed from their religion by someone else. If people change their religion they do so for their own reasons.

They are also made to do it under force. For example you are given two choices die or convert to Muslim.

Or by induced choice for monetary or other reasons :

In India the muslim emperors used to lay a religion tax called Jajiya. If you wanted to follow any religion other than Muslim, you had to pay this tax,  in addition to the normal tax, which was one third of your income.

Payment of the universal tax plus the religion tax left very little in the hands of poor people.

Then their was this criminal justice system, where if a non muslim did a crime, one way for him to escape was to convert to muslim & he would be pardoned. So a lot of criminals chose to convert.

Then there is direct monetary incentive. for example at many places in tribal India, the christian missionaries have these schemes where they will look after your child's expenses if you convert to christian.

Seems to me that whenever people start talking about God(s) they end up talking about religion. If God=Religion then there's a lot of Gods around. Too bad none of them seem to be (fully) functional.

Very well put, very informational.

This thread grows more juvenile by the second. Now you have conjured up a way to bring ta ta taxes into the equation. Well, dig your trenches and good luck with that...